|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Insulating paints (Reply to this comment)
by bdmallalieu
Hi Gasman, & thanks for your updated expose of the misleading claims by a number of insulating paint suppliers with regard to prospective energy savings. Are you aware of the following two UK organisations (linked to government) to which such claims can be referred: http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/advice/consumer-advice.cfm & http://www.asa.org.uk/ ? Of course, I cannot guarantee they will oblige accordingly, but they ought to investigate & decide!
However, may please I use this opportunity to raise an issue of current relevance & concern to the UK government (e.g. DECC) and some property owners which relates to this topic. As you may be aware, 25% of UK carbon emissions is attributable to the domestic sector and attempts have been made for a number of decades to reduce this by persuading householders to invest in various energy saving opportunities, especially insulation. Whilst some improvements have been made, the successive governments have yet to make large reductions in the carbon impact, and householders have other priorities for their income. So, the latest strategy is to be launched this year in the new Green Deal (GD), in which electricity companies are planned to put up the money for identified & approved investments, which the householders will then repay through their energy bills. The proposed GD includes an emphasis on external insulation (i.e. inside & outside the property). However, obstacles to this can occur in properties in certain locations, as well as those unwilling internally in their rooms to either install surface insulation of a finite thickness (& lose space) and then re-decorate --- with all the inherent interruption. Whilst properties in conservation areas understandably will not be permitted (or householders even wish !) to apply external insulation on to say natural stone or other such finishes. Overall in UK (& Europe) this can aggregate to a significant amount of properties!
So, there is a need as I see it to research & develop external insulation finishes that do really save energy (unlike those you have exposed!) for both inside and outside. This will mean internal room spray-on (or paint-on) coatings that do not require as great a thickness as alternative conventional insulating materials, whilst outside a new type of spray-on transparent coating that retains the existing appearance of the property (which local planners will accept). These coatings would act like those now applied to double-glazing that reject solar gain to atmosphere and at the same time reject heat loss back to the property interior.
Do you know of any such developments in progress or which companies would be best positioned already to pioneer such coatings, possibly assisted by universities? The market could be significant around the world where the above constraints apply!
|
Feb 08 '12
2:17 pm PST
|
|
What a Crock! (Reply to this comment)
by luvinlyf
Ever wonder why GARY and RANDY make similar statements or comments?? MAYBE because its the same Floridian! Ha!
|
Jul 16 '11
1:36 pm PDT
|
|
Re: I paid money for it.... (Reply to this comment)
by the_gas_man
Randy,
Assuming you aren't dumb enough to have paid cash for the WU report or for one similar to it, why not email me a copy of the invoice, blacking out the amount paid and your own identity if you like. I would just like to know who you paid, for what and when.
It would give you some credence if you were able to do that. Otherwise, you're just another blowhard making more noise than my grandfather on Saturday night.
The Gasman
|
Feb 05 '11
6:17 pm PST
|
|
Nothing New...Nothing of Value.... (Reply to this comment)
by the_gas_man
Randy,
I admit to being a bit confused by your obsessive attacks on my review, since you have agreed with the WU report and admit the product does not work. Do you just like to write silly diatribes against people who have told you what you have already learned? If so, please get a life.
Continue to babble and attack me here as much as you like, I don't mind.
However, the next time you write, why don't you present scientically verifiable proof of the energy saving claims and hence shut me up forever?
I have invited you, Insuladd, Thermilate, Hy-Tech Sales, and all the other supporters of these products to shut me up with technically sound proof of their energy saving claims. Yet almost 10 years later there has been no response of that sort.
I wonder why?
|
Feb 05 '11
4:47 pm PST
|
|
See you're back to your old self again (Reply to this comment)
by buildingtexas
Four comments over time? You're just obsessing again. Calm down, you might hurt yourself.
Your poison analogy is juvenile and shallow. This is new technology that needs to be thought of in a different way. This is something you are incapable of. Just keep spewing the same nonsense.
The WU report. I AGREED with you on that one. Any way possible you can get that through your head? WU "evaluated" Insuladd which doesn't work. How do I know? I paid money for it and tested it. How do you know? Well you simply don't.
RIMA. Thanks so much for bringing that up again. Once again, for your short attention span, RIMA did NOT test the ceramic product. No matter how many times I point out that you can't tell the difference between powder and liquid paint...you keep raging on with the same lack of knowledge. Keep it up, please. It only makes you look even more foolish.
I have, in the past, addressed each point you have made. After that, you have failed to address the points I have made.
It is your inability to do anything other than spout the same incorrect nonsense over and over.....and address direct points made to YOU, that is the definition of cowardly.
Now go back to saying the same ignorant things over and over...multiple times. It obviously gives you a reason to exist.
Randy,
buildingtexas@yahoo.com
|
Feb 04 '11
10:45 am PST
|
|
As for never using these products... (Reply to this comment)
by the_gas_man
I've also never used a vent-free gas fireplace in my home, and just look at how many reviews I have written on that subject over the past 15 years. Reviews that are based solely upon my technical expertise in this field.
One does not have to eat a product that is proven to be poisonous in order to warn others against it's adverse effects, nor does one have to be fleeced out of their hard earned money, in order to warn others to be aware of an extreme exaggeration in product advertising.
Regards,
The Gasman
|
Feb 03 '11
11:00 pm PST
|
|
Washington University's report is also worth mentioning... (Reply to this comment)
by the_gas_man
Randy,
I would also like your response to the report made by Washington University on Insuladd paint additives. Were they also misguided and deluded? I've provided the link to their results in my review.
To not respond to their findings would be cowardly.
The Gasman
|
Feb 03 '11
10:47 pm PST
|
|
Re: The only point worth mentioning... (Reply to this comment)
by the_gas_man
Randy,
Continue to babble and attack me here as much as you like, I don't mind.
However, the next time you write, why don't you present scientically verifiable proof of the energy saving claims and hence shut me up forever?
I have invited you, Insuladd, Thermilate, Hy-Tech Sales, and all the other supporters of these products to shut me up with technically sound proof of their energy saving claims. Yet almost 10 years later there has been no response of that sort.
I wonder why?
I will not continue to strain to respond to your many weird critiques of my review, I would appreciate your technically sound and proven response, backed by a third party, nationally recognized testing agency. As I have told David Page, once I get that, this review will disappear and I would even apologize.
What more can I offer? If you can't produce the above, please leave me in peace, as I find your argumentative style devoid of any technical merits and therefore simply annoying.
Regards,
The Gasman
|
Feb 03 '11
10:41 pm PST
|
|
Re: A Big point worth mentioning... (Reply to this comment)
by the_gas_man
Randy,
Exactly what is the price of butter in Texas these days?
I think the answer to that question would be of more interest to me and other readers than what you have just written.
The fact that Hy-Tech and Insuladd's paint additives failed, (and I must add failed miserably) to meet the absolute minimum requirements of RIMA International to be considered as an IRC, under nationally recognized test conditions and codes is very indicative of their efficiency. It is very much germane to the argument that they are an ineffective insulation process.
What else do you have to offer to prove the positive effects these products produce, again, backed by more than your word for it?
The price of a pound of butter in my area is currently running at about almost $3.00.
You might as well give up on convincing me or the readers of my review that your products are remotely capable of saving 20 to 40 percent on their heating and cooling costs. If that claim were remotely possible, I would be on your side.
Since I know that isn't possible and (if you were honest, you do too) I won't lose much sleep tonight about joining your group and eating my words.
Regards,
The Gasman
|
Feb 03 '11
10:29 pm PST
|
|
Re: One point worth mentioning... (Reply to this comment)
by buildingtexas
What you have continued to display is a remarkable ability to disregard any valid points made. Anyone with tremendous patience can read farther down and see that. They'll just have to understand that you've removed your most embarrassing posts. Such as the number of times it's been pointed out that RIMA has nothing to do with this discussion, and you can't comprehend the difference between a powdered paint additive, and a can of pre-mixed paint. That is only one of many points that you just gloss over and keep yelling. You should have been in politics.
Let's remind everyone that I've always agreed with you to a certain extent. Mind blowing, huh?
I agree that some companies sell worthless garbage. I also state that at least one company sells products that work.
My opinion comes from spending my money and time, and testing several products from several manufacturers.
Your opinion comes from....well one can only guess because you've never done anything with these types of products.
Randy
buildingtexas@yahoo.com
|
Feb 03 '11
10:54 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: One point worth mentioning... (Reply to this comment)
by the_gas_man
Gary,
I more than understand the concept and the premise for the energy saving claims made by these companies. What my review has railed against since 2002 was the unsubstantiated claims of energy savings of "up to 40% on heating and cooling costs. Those original ads on this very website were so filled with misinformation it made me see red.
That was what prompted this review and since every once in awhile some of the three mentioned still slip out those kinds of promises, it is why I have continued to keep this review current. I'd do the same thing to any snake oil salesmen.
You and Randy may not be acquainted, but it did seem a bit of a big coincidence that you replied to my post to him within a minute of my submission, after being away for so many months and the fact that you are both Texans made it seem even more unlikely to have been coincidental. Never-the-less, I accept your comments and really don't much care.
I stand by my original review of 2002 until someone proves me wrong with hard, unbiased technical data, which would have been provided by now if it were available. Since I wrote that review in 2002, the U.S. DOE, EPA, Energy Star, RIMA International and Washington University has all more or less produced documents that agree with my views, some have even emailed me directly to confirm their agreement.
Regards,
The Gasman
|
Feb 03 '11
9:11 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: One point worth mentioning... (Reply to this comment)
by gcoffing
Gasman, My motive is clear. When I run across statements that may damage the Ceramic coating industry, I try to lessen their impact with facts. I have agreed with you on many points and have added information to clarify differences between products that work and those that don't. I don't know Randy and have only talked with him on this forum. It seems the only way to prove a products insullation properties is to pour a sample one inch thick and have it tested for R value, so you can understand it. I will let you know when that happens. Please don't imply that I conspire with anyone. Thanks, Gary
|
Feb 02 '11
7:47 pm PST
|
|
Re: "No" points worth mentioning... (Reply to this comment)
by the_gas_man
Dear Randy,
I can honestly sit back and laugh when you leave another of your pointless rants. While you imply you have more knowledge on the subject products within my review, you and your Texas buddy bring absolutely nothing to the table, except attempts to make abusive rants. These are the tactics of an ignorant bully. If you have nothing to add to the technical discussion, shut up.
Incidentally, with tens of thousands of people agreeing with my review, you and your bud Gary hardly make a difference, so in answer to your comment, yes...I am proud.
As for the changes to the comments section, I have the right to delete anything I want, I've never attempted to block your diatribes as they speak well enough for themselves. When people read my review and then read your comments they are comparing technical information and references to other reputable agencies who agree with me, to a person who calls me names and provides no technically based counter arguments. What do you think they will decide about you? You are truly the deluded one, thinking that anyone is reading your comments and taking them seriously.
As for not responding to your email to me, give me a break, did I hurt your feelings? I still choose who I will respond to in emails. If you had any idea how many I get each day, you would understand that.
Best regards to you too,
The Gasman
|
Feb 02 '11
8:29 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: One point worth mentioning... (Reply to this comment)
by buildingtexas
Oh my. It's worse than I thought.
Now the best you have is paranoid delusions?
Even you can realize that it's possible to be notified by email when new comments are added. How else would you know when to check in? Or are you so absolutely obsessed that you just keep looking in after all these years??
Contrary to what you may believe, the only reason to post to your rambling blog is the opportunity to let new viewers know that you have no knowledge of what you rant about, are incapable of responding to direct questions or points against your deluded logic, merely continue to spew the same inane pointless rhetoric.
The BEST and most notable point are the changes you have made to this rambling tirade of yours.
The subject line has changed. Many phrases have been altered or removed, and a great many of your posts have been removed selectively.
I think we all know that you didn't do this out of boredom...or the goodness of your heart.
I've attempted to contact you via email for a civil discussion and exchange of opinions...and oddly enough you have been too cowardly to even respond. Interesting.
The only point in posting is so that new readers can see you for what you truly are. Uneducated on the topic you speak of, and simply another internet bully with a keyboard. You must be so proud.
Best regards,
Randy
|
Feb 02 '11
5:35 am PST
|
|
Re: One point worth mentioning... (Reply to this comment)
by the_gas_man
Gary,
The fact that this review saw almost no comments for so many months and then suddenly gets one from "Someone" calling himself Randy, with the handle of "buildingtexas" and then yourself who is from San Antonio, Texas,... within a minute of my reply to Randy, tells me mountains about what you two are up to.
Things must be slow in Texas for you two pards to be spending time in your basement cooking up, not so clever responses to my 10 year old review.
Glad to hear it. Like to hear more from ya pard, if you ever come up with some credible technical information that disproves my aging review.
Regards,
The Gasman
|
Jan 31 '11
7:21 pm PST
|
|
Re:Another Distributor Commenting Without Scientific Proof (Reply to this comment)
by the_gas_man
Thanks Gary,
Your comments bring nothing new to the table and seem in concert with your friend Randy, strangely at the same time?
Whatever your motives, my comments stand until you and or he proves them to be wrong.
Regards,
The Gasman
|
Jan 31 '11
6:58 pm PST
|
|
Re: Some points worth mentioning (Reply to this comment)
by gcoffing
I thought that product reviews were given by those who have experience with a product. I didn't realize there was such a loose policy. Regardless, Ceramic Coatings are not the end all for every situation. There are applications that warrant these coatings over conventional solutions. Gary
|
Jan 31 '11
6:12 pm PST
|
|
RE: Another distributor cries about this review.... (Reply to this comment)
by the_gas_man
Hi Randy,
Thanks for taking the time to bring this aging review back to the news front. I was starting to think it was a forgotten item.
While I usually try to refrain from responding to low class opinions, that lack any technical details, you will be an exception.
As for your uninformed opinion that I have "no personal knowledge of this product" I have to disagree. I have many decades of experience in the HVAC industry and have accredited degrees in HVAC housing design. I will try to speak slowly, so that you can understand. That means, I have taken courses that use scientifically proven means to determine the R factors for various building materials. These R factors in conjunction with heat loss/gain calculations for glass and wall with north or south exposure, and an indepth knowledge of duct design, combined with the average degree days for the dwelling in question, allow an HVAC engineer to predict the size of the heating and air conditioning system required to meet local codes.
Today, I still stand by my original comments, that Insuladd's and Thermilate's promises of "saving up to 40% on your energy costs", with a thin coat of paint mixed with their product, was a ridiculous claim, is a ridiculous claim and always will be a ridiculous claim.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) have agreed with me, in writing, RIMA International agree with me and a report from the unbiased Washington University agrees with me.
I have invited you and them to prove otherwise, but the best that they or you have managed, (after almost 10 years), is to write silly comments about my original review. No scientific proof, no scientifically proven rebuttals, just junk.
So thanks again for stirring up the pot. This review was beginning to grow stale and almost forgotten.
Best regards,
The Gasman
P.S. I sincerely hope this review has continued to hamper your sales of this product to unsuspecting consumers. Why else would you be writing to me again after such a prolonged delay?
|
Jan 31 '11
6:12 pm PST
|
|
Some points worth mentioning (Reply to this comment)
by buildingtexas
Something that needs to be mentioned again, is that the opinions of the original blog writer are from someone with ZERO personal knowledge or experience with any product of this type. He will undoubtedly say, yet again, that he doesn't need personal knowledge to form an opinion. One can only hope that a reasonable person can see the absurdity of such thinking.
It should also be noted that this blog has now been heavily edited by the original author. A great many of his comments have been removed, which now slants the appearance of comments even more. The more rude, uneducated, and venomous posts have been taken down.
I will say again that while the internet brings a great deal of power and knowledge to everyone, it also is dangerous as it gives anyone with a keyboard the opportunity to rant and attempt some perceived credibility.
Let's not forget that this diatribe started many years ago, is from someone who frankly has no idea what they are talking about, and has removed many comments which prove this or show him in a negative light.
All the best.
Randy
buildingtexas@yahoo.com
|
Jan 31 '11
12:35 pm PST
|
|
Re: insulating paint additive (Reply to this comment)
by the_gas_man
Dear bnaylor0,
Thanks for taking time to comment.
You are not alone in realizing that these types of products are merely designed to take advantage of rising energy costs. To this very day they have all rallied against my subject review without providing a shred of scientifically proven data. They all continue to be shunned by the established nationally recognized testing agencies.
You saved your money and your time. Look towards more conventional means of insulating and making your cottage more comfortable.
Best regards,
The Gasman
|
Jan 06 '11
9:16 pm PST
|
|
insulating paint additive (Reply to this comment)
by bnaylor0
I live in an old cottage with thick walls. I nearly decided to buy some of this stuff as it is extreemly cold to say the least ,the walls do not warm up or hold the heat this paint additive seemed to be the answer but after reading your comments i suddenly realized "if it seems to good to be true leave it alone)
|
Dec 31 '10
1:11 pm PST
|
|
The Purpose of This Comments Section... (Reply to this comment)
by the_gas_man
A final note, about your rants...
I would like to point out that this comments section is intended for people to comment on the actual review that was written about a product or service.
Would you mind pointing out, where, "exactly" in my review, which I wrote in 2002, that I even made a passing reference to NASA?
I think you are a little misguided in your efforts here and definitely, lacking any depth of technical knowledge on the subject matter.
Regards,
The Gasman
|
Sep 20 '10
5:08 pm PDT
|
|
Question of the day.... (Reply to this comment)
by kasualobserver
How many times can the word "debunked" be used in a single thread?
You guys are absolutely positively hilarious!
One...who has absolutely no clue about what he just rants on and on about incoherently.
And the other....who has "invested" heavily in a company that sells cheap Asian fly ash and really cheap paint. If you had any idea where that stuff comes from, and why David Page doesn't run the company any more....you'd realize what a situation you're really in.
I'd pay to see the look on your face then!
Keep up the good work, boys.
This is the best show going!!
|
Sep 20 '10
11:28 am PDT
|
|
... (Reply to this comment)
by sunconomy
"How fair of an offer is that?"
It would be crazy of me to believe I can "prove" anything to you when you won't even admit you were wrong on two very simple points.
I clearly debunked two of your statements with proof anyone reading these comments can see. Not admitting you were wrong on those points is hurting your credibility, not mine.
I find it ironic that the core of your issues with these companies is what you see as stretching the truth. Meanwhile, that's exactly what you are doing with statements like the ones I've debunked.
|
Sep 19 '10
6:37 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Getting this through my " think head".... (Reply to this comment)
by sunconomy
It would crazy of me to try and debunk your entire article with one reply. I'm simply debating you on a point by point basis and started with the low hanging fruit.
As of now, I've only challenged two of your statements which were easy to prove wrong. And, you just keep talking in circles instead of admitting you were wrong on those two points. I'd really hate to see you argue about abstract concepts since you can't even admit you were wrong on two simple points.
|
Sep 19 '10
5:29 pm PDT
|
|
Get this through your think head.... (Reply to this comment)
by sunconomy
I've never said that NASA "endorsed" the advertised effectiveness.
You said:
1.) "...claim to have use NASA based technology. It is not the first time I have seen this statement and it will likely not be the last"
2.) "No where, and I repeat, "No Where" will you find an actual endorsement from NASA towards any of them"
And, I provided two links where NASA clearly says that they helped create Insuladd. Both links are clearly "an actual endorsement from NASA".
So, yes: I did debunk those two statements of yours. I'm waiting for you to recant those statements before moving on to your other points, which we can address one at a time.
Or, we can keep talking in circles and you can keep looking crazy.
|
Sep 18 '10
6:50 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Whomever You Are And Whatever Your Agenda... (Reply to this comment)
by sunconomy
"You have debunked nothing, you have simply tried to misdirect the focus of my review towards NASA"
Yes I did. I debunked your statements which clearly said that none of these products were created with or endorsed in any way by NASA. I provided links proving otherwise. Simply concede that you were wrong on those points and we can move on into other things. Simply agreeing (or in this case, recognizing reality) that NASA helped create Insuladd and has two pages "endorsing them in some way" on their site doesn't invalidate all of your other points. We can debate those individually...
So, again: I simply ask that you admit the sky is blue so we can debate your other points. I can't bring myself to debate you on other points if you can't even admit you were wrong on a couple of points / proven wrong. Do that and we can move on. Or, you can just keep looking like an idiot to anyone who bothers reading all of this and following the links provided by me.
|
Sep 17 '10
9:22 pm PDT
|
|
NASA (Reply to this comment)
by sunconomy
"Show me any comments from NASA that support statements like, "Save 20 to 40% on your cooling and heating costs." Nasa wisely disclaim any knowledge of such saving potential, and use words like "could save" or "may reduce"."
^^^ That has not been in our debate. I've never claimed that NASA gives solid numbers on anything. I debunked what you said here:
"Thanks for pointing out that all three of the companies mentioned in this review claim to have use NASA based technology. It is not the first time I have seen this statement and it will likely not be the last. The truth is that NASA does not seem to care who uses their valued name. No where, and I repeat, "No Where" will you find an actual endorsement from NASA towards any of them. They Continuously cite NASA and the techinical exchange program, but NASA never acknowledges their claims and even goes so far as to distance themselves from efficiency claims made by some of the three manufacturers of ceramic dust that would do as much good being flushed down the toilet as being washed upon a gool southerner's walls, roofs and ceilings."
I did so by providing links to two pages on NASA's website where they clearly plug Insuladd and take credit for helping create it.
This is a quote from NASA:
"Bringing the NASA insulation powder to the public market resulted in an innovative partnership with Tech Traders, Inc. Months of testing and development created InsuladdŽ, a safe, non-toxic powder that can be added to any interior or exterior paint to transform it into a layer of insulation."
Here's the links, again:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/nasalife/green_paint.html
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2007/ch_4.html
How about you read those before playing Captain Assumption.
Now... Recant your quote from above and we can move on into your other points. I simply need to know that you will debate me point by point. I will gladly concede to you when your information / logic outweighs mine. You just need to do the same.
And, I'm not Larry Haines. I'm his business partner on this project. I find it insane that "sufficient research" by you has you convinced that he's "another parasite on the uninformed consumers". I'd debate you on that ridiculousness but it'd get us off topic.
Anyone reading this that wants to do their own "sufficient research" on Larry can poke around his online presence via:
roadhomebuilders.com
sunconomy.com
|
Sep 16 '10
7:32 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Full disclosure... (Reply to this comment)
by sunconomy
So... I debunk your information about NASA and you ignore that and ramble on with a bunch of other stuff.
Acknowledge that you were full of it on your NASA points and I will move on into the other stuff you brought up. I don't want to waste my time if you refuse to recant on points you are proven wrong on.
And, to answer your sleep at night thing:
I wouldn't be selling this stuff if I thought it was BS. In fact, I'll quit selling it if you prove to me that the product is simply snake oil.
|
Sep 16 '10
12:44 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Full disclosure... (Reply to this comment)
by sunconomy
Are you high or just crazy?
Read the paragraph right after the one about NASA's STS-79...
"Bringing the NASA insulation powder to the public market resulted in an innovative partnership with Tech Traders, Inc. Months of testing and development created InsuladdŽ, a safe, non-toxic powder that can be added to any interior or exterior paint to transform it into a layer of insulation."
This isn't me or Insuladd saying that: it's NASA! And, it's obviously not the same stuff used on the STS-79 and no one is claiming that it is.
|
Sep 16 '10
8:52 am PDT
|
|
|
|
